Edit: And just as I type that the primary gets called: Trump wins the Republican side and Sanders wins the Democrat race. It appears that John Kasich has come second on the Republican side which is probably more of a blow to the other candidates then it is a boost to his; while it helps in the short term it's hard to see him building too much from it. Interesting to see how that all breaks down; did Christie's evisceration of Rubio hurt Rubio more than it helped Christie? Did Cruz get a respectable enough figure to take something from it?

Rubio did more damage to himself and it shows in his fifth place finish. I was really surprised he had dropped that low, I was expecting a third place finish for Rubio. I dont think he is going to last past South Carolina. The take away from New Hampshire is that the establishment side of the Republican Party still doesn't have a candidate that can beat Trump.

Rubio did more damage to himself and it shows in his fifth place finish. I was really surprised he had dropped that low, I was expecting a third place finish for Rubio. I dont think he is going to last past South Carolina. The take away from New Hampshire is that the establishment side of the Republican Party still doesn't have a candidate that can beat Trump.

Edit: Chris Christie just announced he is suspending his campaign.

Christie's attack on Rubio turned his biggest strength into a weakness.

If there's an underlying message to both primary campaigns it's establishment vs anti-establishment and the anti-establishment side is seemingly in the ascendancy. Now, almost every politician likes to present themselves as anti-establishment and an outsider come elections but this time there's the very real sense that it's true when you look at at least three of the main players; Trump is clearly miles outside the political establishment, Sanders may basically be a career politician but he's been that from the fringes and Cruz has spent his time in office largely putting the Republican establishment's nose out of joint. The contrast may be most distinct in the Democratic race where you have basically the most establishment candidate of all in Hillary Clinton taking on Sanders but it's arguably been more profound in the Republican contest where establishment candidates who on paper you'd expect to be front runners... Bush, Rubio and to an extent Christie... are all being swept aside.

One of Rubio's great strengths as a campaigner is his ability to stay on message. Because he tends to answer questions with his 30 second per-prepared speeches he makes sure that he always gets his talking points in and rarely gets dragged into uncomfortable or unfamiliar territory. It can sound rehearsed (which it no doubt it) but it works and it's effective.

But in the context of an election where an underlying theme on both sides of the aisle has been "establishment bad", it's not something you want pointed out. Talking in soundbites and having pre-prepared answers is one of the things "establishment" politicians are frequently criticized for. Even if we ignore how badly Rubio handled Christie's attack, simply by attacking in the first place Christie put that point into people's minds and so now every time Rubio is asked a question and turns it into one of his talking points people are going to be reminded of this idea. Rubio's great strength... that he can stay on message and get the points he wants to make in... is now a weakness... that he's an establishment politician doing the establishment thing.

And if we include how badly Rubio answered the attack, well? It's pretty dreadful. Christie accused him of having pre-prepared speeches and talking points which he wheels out regardless of whether they're relevant or not... and Rubio answered by repeating a previous talking point almost word for word which had little relevance to what he was being asked. I understand why Rubio wanted the "Obama knows what he's doing..." point out there; if the theme become that Obama doesn't have a clue due to his lack of experience then Rubio's similar lack of experience also shines through. So he needs to say that Obama knows what he's doing, he's just doing the wrong things. But to repeat that point endlessly and seemingly mindlessly when it had little to do with the question was bad enough to begin with and even worse when the criticism he was trying to answer was that he was a "Washington insider" who got told what to say and vote for by his advisors rather than make decisions himself.

It seems pretty clear that Christie's attack did more to diminish Rubio than it did to elevate Christie; it's seemingly convinced people that Rubio isn't the guy they should support but did little to convince them Christie was. But while it may not have the lasting impact of "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" it's in much the same vein and could well have basically killed Rubio's campaign unless he comes storming back quickly.

At an election rally in Florida, Trump dubbed Sanders a "communist" (without mentioning him by name). I figure it's business as usual in a way... I remember seeing an old campaign clip from the eighties where some Republican thundered "I'm tired of all those liberals and communists!!" (sounds very funny from here in Europe, where liberal doesn't mean quite the same as it often does in the US).

The problem with the Republicans is that they have fatigued words like communist from overuse. After all, they called Preisdent Obama a communist and a fascist at the same time, which not only loses them credibility with those who know what those words mean, but makes calling a real socialist like Sanders less impactful. Not to mention, younger voters are taking socialism as a positive.

The problem with the Republicans is that they have fatigued words like communist from overuse. After all, they called Preisdent Obama a communist and a fascist at the same time, which not only loses them credibility with those who know what those words mean, but makes calling a real socialist like Sanders less impactful. Not to mention, younger voters are taking socialism as a positive.

The fact that Sanders is considered a real socialist shows as well as anything that terms like socialism have largely lost their meaning. Taken in any context but the most recent one Sanders is no socialist... he's at best a social democrat... and that he should now be considered one shows how far the modern interpretation of socialism has abandoned its founding principles.

But - 'social democrat' isn't nearly as knee-jerkingly terrifying as 'socialist'. Has that pesky word 'democracy' in it and invites comparisons to FDR and Albert Einstein.

I don't think when HannibalBarca was describing Sanders as a real socialist above it was because he wanted Sanders and his policies to sound terrifying nor when many of Sanders supporters call him one are they using it as a negative. Conservatives who brand anything even marginally left of centre (and hell, some thing right of centre) "socialist" as an insult may be wrong, but then so are those actually on the left who do the same.

The test for whether someone is a socialist should be remarkably simple; do they support the collective (or at the very minimum state) ownership of the means of production? If they do there's a good chance they're a socialist (although some anarchists may disagree.... but the difference between socialism and anarchism gets rather blurred). If they don't, they're not a socialist. They may be a social democrat (an ideology that broke away from socialism) but it's just as inaccurate for those on the left to label Sanders a real socialist (if we want the term to retain any of its original meaning) as it is for those on the right to do so for Obama.

I only named Sanders a socialist because he calls himself a socialist, albeit of a specific branch--a democratic socialist. The modifier is democratic, and subject is socialist. He does not call himself a social democrat, in which the operative is democrat. He wasn't a democrat, he was an independent.

But I think you are largely right, Consortium11--he isn't a true socialist by the full definition of the term. He still accepts the free market mostly as-is, but I think he does that because it would largely impractical to believe the United States could become a socialist nation within his own presidential term or terms. The United States is by no means a pure capitalist society, anyway, incorporating numerous socialist ingredients like the postal service, the military, and Medicare. However, I believe that the stigma attached to socialism by a significant segment of the American population is being worn away by the exposure Sanders is getting to the people of this country.

I only named Sanders a socialist because he calls himself a socialist, albeit of a specific branch--a democratic socialist. The modifier is democratic, and subject is socialist. He does not call himself a social democrat, in which the operative is democrat.

Democratic socialism is a defined political ideology which differs wildly from Sanders views; it's traditional Marxist-Leninist type Socialism but one that believes there should be a democratic element. Social democracy is a separate ideology that is a far better fit for Sanders and his approach; using a capitalist system to promote social good (i.e. welfare spending and the like).

It's the distinction between Democrat with the capital "D" (i.e. member of a political party) and democrat with the small "d" (believing in democracy). Republicans clearly aren't Democrats but the vast majority are democrats, just as Democrats aren't Republicans but the vast majority are republicans (as in they don't want a king/queen type sovereign). Saying someone is a social democrat doesn't mean they have to be a member of the Democratic party in the same way that someone being a republican doesn't mean they need to join the GOP.

I don't think when HannibalBarca was describing Sanders as a real socialist above it was because he wanted Sanders and his policies to sound terrifying nor when many of Sanders supporters call him one are they using it as a negative.

Most of the time that I've hear the term used during this campaign, it has been from someone trying to use it as a 'scare word'. I haven't heard it used in that way on this forum, but on Facebook or on Fox networks - generally the implication is 'social-anything' = 'socialist' = 'something like that there "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" ayup.' (Never mind the fact that non-democratic nations have been slapping 'democratic' in their country names for decades.)

For anyone under 30, they will not remember the Wall coming down. (I know I don't) In that case the word does not have the same meaning attached. These are also the same people whom feel like they are at the bottom of a well with no way out thanks to rising debt, price of living and lower jobs on offer. While I greatly dislike leaning as far to the left as Sanders is, I can understand why so many would.

My wife linked me to this and while written very much with a definite political lean in mind, the writing is not hollow and I think paints a good picture of why someone would vote for the man. Personally as a politically savvy man on the outside looking in (ABC's Radio National is my favorite station to listen to if that means anything to anyone) I will say that a lot is wrong with politics the world over right now and the rise of extremes on both the left and the right I feel was really only a matter of time. Not only that but in the US, the rise of the radical Right has been happening for a good little while now. Here in Australia we just had our most Right leaning Leader in about 40 years taken down by public opinion, so while I will say that there is things wrong with politics the world over, the system as a whole still appears to work.

For anyone under 30, they will not remember the Wall coming down. (I know I don't) In that case the word does not have the same meaning attached.

The problem with that is that the majority of politicians aren't courting the 'under thirty' set. I'm not sure that they every really have. The voter apathy that has been running rampant in the younger set has also helped to convince them that courting that demographic is a waste of effort. They are still courting the older voters, for whom 'socialist' and 'communist' are still valid scare words.

For anyone under 30, they will not remember the Wall coming down. (I know I don't) In that case the word does not have the same meaning attached. These are also the same people whom feel like they are at the bottom of a well with no way out thanks to rising debt, price of living and lower jobs on offer. While I greatly dislike leaning as far to the left as Sanders is, I can understand why so many would.

My wife linked me to this and while written very much with a definite political lean in mind, the writing is not hollow and I think paints a good picture of why someone would vote for the man. Personally as a politically savvy man on the outside looking in (ABC's Radio National is my favorite station to listen to if that means anything to anyone) I will say that a lot is wrong with politics the world over right now and the rise of extremes on both the left and the right I feel was really only a matter of time. Not only that but in the US, the rise of the radical Right has been happening for a good little while now. Here in Australia we just had our most Right leaning Leader in about 40 years taken down by public opinion, so while I will say that there is things wrong with politics the world over, the system as a whole still appears to work.

I'm a Millennial - having been born during the 1980s. I got to hear, quite a lot, from my parents (Boomers) and from my grandparents (Greatest) how good/bad life was. But I was told, ALWAYS told, the same thing from both of them: "Reiji, be dedicated to your work, work hard, and always be willing to learn, and you'll be fine." (Not really sure why they said the first AND second thing, but I digress.)

Personal History

I had the most unfortunate luck to graduate right as the 2008 financial crisis was happening (which I still can't believe to this day, what sort of IDIOT thinks that pieces of wood and brick and plastic NEVER go down in value?), and companies were starting to institute hiring freezes. I went out and looked for jobs for a YEAR while I lived in a tiny efficiency apartment, subsidized by my parents. And my parents were far worse than any government authority about said subsidization - I was told about every 'Help Wanted' sign they ran across; was excoriated (primarily by my father) for not applying to a job, even though I had applied for six IDENTICAL to it and was told every time "You have a degree, you're overqualified"; and was always offered the opportunity to 'come back home' and work around the house to earn money.

I FINALLY got a job, working as a substitute at a local middle school, which called me about twice a week, to work full days when a science or math teacher was unavailable (I told the people at the school I would also do Social Studies, but that never went anywhere). It was enough to pay my monthly bills, mainly because I didn't need to pay for my own health insurance - but I could never really go out and do anything, my idea of a 'fun' evening was going over to the apartment of a couple of my college mates and chucking $5 in the bucket for a burger and beer, while we played video games or watched movies ala MST3K.

I did that for a year after I graduated, and as the school year (and thus my substitute's income) began to draw to a close, my parents and I made a conscious decision for me to move out to the NE - I had gotten married to a girl from the area about nine months previously, and we decided that things might be better out there than around here.

So I moved, and the apartment we found is where I still live to this day, almost six whole years later. For almost two whole years, I was out of work - the one job I got was working for the Census Bureau during the 2010 Census for about six weeks - until I got a job working the sunrise shift at FedEx as a QA clerk. In that time, I went back to school and earned my teacher's license - paying for it out of my own pocket by cashing in the savings bonds I had gotten growing up as a kid, and using a tuition reimbursement program.

Finished the program almost three years ago now - and all I've ever really been able to get out of it were various substitute teacher positions (long-term or day to day). Not a single full-time job application I made went anywhere substantial.

I'm over 30 now, in what I'm told are my prime career building years, where I should be working to rank up in whatever job I'm doing...and I'm no better off than I was when I graduated 7 years ago. No job, no real prospects, and most importantly, no idea what it is I should be doing with my life. My wife works two jobs - one at the local town library, where she's been for the last 5 years, with naught but the yearly pay raise to show for it; the other at the local supermarket, which used to be an incredible union job that paid for her health insurance out of her paycheck deductions. No more, as of last year. It's funny, they still take out those deductions (they haven't changed a penny), but now they only reimburse her for 40% of her insurance costs rather than pay for them outright.

In short? Life blows. Yet all I can hear about is how lucky my generation's got it - there's no Evil Empire, there's smartphones, we're living in the most enlightened and progressive time ever (even if that stupid gender pay gap still exists, even though it was made illegal during the JFK administration). That is B. S.

The problem we're facing today is not one of inefficient government policies, or rising costs of operating in the modern world. The problem we're facing today is one of ethical deficiency. That's as much true for the corporation that makes billions of dollars in profit and yet insists if wages go up, it will hire fewer people as it is for that person who actually does game the welfare system. (I'm not ignorant to say that they don't exist, but the truth is that more and more people on government aid are just folks trying to live their lives.) A problem that's really only made worse by the fact that there are people who insist either that there is no problem, or the problem is laid at the feet of people who have no power to address it, or people who had nothing to do with it.

Bernie is more than willing to admit there is a problem, and he's calling out the people who currently have the power to fix the problem.

I'm a Millennial - having been born during the 1980s. I got to hear, quite a lot, from my parents (Boomers) and from my grandparents (Greatest) how good/bad life was. But I was told, ALWAYS told, the same thing from both of them: "Reiji, be dedicated to your work, work hard, and always be willing to learn, and you'll be fine." (Not really sure why they said the first AND second thing, but I digress.)

Bernie is more than willing to admit there is a problem, and he's calling out the people who currently have the power to fix the problem.

Gonna 'fess up here. I saw the Wall come down. The whistle at the beginning of 'Winds of Change' will cause me to freeze like a deer in the headlights, and the chorus will make me tear up.

Personal history

Right around the time I joined E, the housing bubble collapsed, and the major home repair (flooding basement) we needed went from 'tight, but manageable' to 'foreclosure spiral' because the banks stopped lending money. We were able to get the flooding stopped, but the house was really unsalable, given the market, the location, and the cosmetic damage we could no longer afford to fix.

Add in the 'disposable nature' of employees these days, and we ended up on Shit Creek without a canoe - never mind the paddle!

This election, I finally have the chance to vote for a candidate instead of 'against the guy I can't stand'.

1) He seeks to redress the erosion of the New Deal that FDR instituted, which saw the greatest increase in the quality of life and growth of the middle class, for those working poor which constituted the majority of the population. These were socialist policies embedded in a capitalist system, which is fine for me at this time. Once we work out some more of our social ills, we can continue on to a more balanced socialist-capitalist system, like we see in so many European systems.

2) He has integrity. The man is honest, and has supported what he believes in his entire life.